Is it just me, or am I incredibly bad at designing websites?
I SUCK AT DESIGNING WEBSITES
There, I said it.
I'm terrible at designing websites and I always have been. I have close to no creativity when it comes to art and web design. I'm terrible at art and that hasn't changed for years. All my website designs are based on solid colors with no images or creative layouts.
Does this ever happen to you? Are you bad at designing websites or have problems thinking of a good design and color scheme?
Ugh, sometimes it takes me days to come up with a crappy design… :(
Don't beat yourself up. Sounds to me like you're trying to make things too complicated. Sometimes the simplest of designs are the most effective. ;)
MoshBat wrote: Why on earth did you make a post like that? Purpose? Yeah, yeah, everything is going wronmg for you. How sad. How awful. Doesn't it just make everyone else feel so sorry for you? Awwh. My heart goes out to you. No, seriously. [/sarcasm]
YESSSSSS!!!! :p:p:p:o:o:o:(:(:(:|:|:|;);):):):):)
FINALLY SOMEONE UNDERSTANDS ME!!!!111one!!!1111!11!
i love you moshbat!!!!
Ntvu wrote: I SUCK AT DESIGNING WEBSITES
There, I said it.
I'm terrible at designing websites and I always have been. I have close to no creativity when it comes to art and web design. I'm terrible at art and that hasn't changed for years. All my website designs are based on solid colors with no images or creative layouts.
Does this ever happen to you? Are you bad at designing websites or have problems thinking of a good design and color scheme?
Ugh, sometimes it takes me days to come up with a crappy design… :(
Dont worry, I'm just as bad. I just download layouts from free layout sites and code them from there. Sure, they aren't the greatest, but I can change them to however I want, so it works great.
MoshBat wrote: [quote]stealth- wrote: [quote]Ntvu wrote: I SUCK AT DESIGNING WEBSITES
There, I said it.
I'm terrible at designing websites and I always have been. I have close to no creativity when it comes to art and web design. I'm terrible at art and that hasn't changed for years. All my website designs are based on solid colors with no images or creative layouts.
Does this ever happen to you? Are you bad at designing websites or have problems thinking of a good design and color scheme?
Ugh, sometimes it takes me days to come up with a crappy design… :(
Dont worry, I'm just as bad. I just download layouts from free layout sites and code them from there. Sure, they aren't the greatest, but I can change them to however I want, so it works great.[/quote] Layouts take around five minutes. Now, the images and colours take longer…[/quote]
I suck at both :( Sadly, it appears I have no creativity when it comes to art of any sort. I did do an okay pacman vector graphic once, though. ;) Later on I might take some gimp tutorials, cause I would certainly enjoy being able to design my own website, rather than borrowing someone elses ideas.
EDIT: I also made a picture of santa once. I was bored and had no internet, and my laptop had no games :(
MoshBat wrote: [quote]ranma wrote: Website designs aren't difficult. There's always the classic with a banner up top, a navbar on the left, and content on the right. Seriously, just stop and think. Something like: http://82.3.173.54/ Will do fine, no? Simple, "flexible" and pink. Perfect. (It has about 3/4 different colours so far XD)[/quote]
cool. haha, i like the page that says "These are some FUCKING LINKS!"
I have my design at www.stealth-x.com, but I think the content section is too thin, because it looks wierd when writing large articles. If you go there, dont use the comment system, its bugged and redirects all comments on any page to one page. Also, none of the articles are finished and the code is out of date. I have a nice box of changes on my local system I need to upload, still.
MoshBat wrote: Right hand bar is not necessarey, and makes it look a bit odd, and that is probably your problem. Shove your affiliates along the bottom, if they need to be on every page. Otherwise, simple, elegant. Very nice. :)
thanks :) Wow, I looked at my comment page and there was about 30 comments from people trying to pentest my site, they looked to be hbh users. maybe I should delete that link :/
However, it looked like none of the tests worked :)
EDIT: I took down my comment system, just till i program some sort of protection into it, also to stop spammers
Futility wrote: Don't beat yourself up. Sounds to me like you're trying to make things too complicated. Sometimes the simplest of designs are the most effective. ;)
Yes you right, I'm not very good in design too. I have done this website with FlexBuilder 3 : www.cdps.univ-montp1.fr (french law university of Montpellier). I used "canvas" & a lot of code (cube if you like) to build that site.
See other websites to inspire you (ex : https://www.photoshop.com/)
Design is not very hard to do ;)
Good Luck
X35C911 wrote: [quote]Futility wrote: Don't beat yourself up. Sounds to me like you're trying to make things too complicated. Sometimes the simplest of designs are the most effective. ;)
Yes you right, I'm not very good in design too. I have done this website with FlexBuilder 3 : www.cdps.univ-montp1.fr (french law university of Montpellier). I used "canvas" & a lot of code (cube if you like) to build that site.
See other websites to inspire you (ex : https://www.photoshop.com/)
Design is not very hard to do ;)
Good Luck[/quote]
Flex is a bad idea for web design, as people with NoScript or text based browsers can't see a thing. It's also bad for search engine optimization as spiders can't index anything, as everything's in an SWF.
system_meltdown wrote: [quote]X35C911 wrote: [quote]Futility wrote: Don't beat yourself up. Sounds to me like you're trying to make things too complicated. Sometimes the simplest of designs are the most effective. ;)
Yes you right, I'm not very good in design too. I have done this website with FlexBuilder 3 : www.cdps.univ-montp1.fr (french law university of Montpellier). I used "canvas" & a lot of code (cube if you like) to build that site.
See other websites to inspire you (ex : https://www.photoshop.com/)
Design is not very hard to do ;)
Good Luck[/quote]
Flex is a bad idea for web design, as people with NoScript or text based browsers can't see a thing. It's also bad for search engine optimization as spiders can't index anything, as everything's in an SWF.[/quote]
Actually that is not entirely accurate. Google can index many SWF version, while its not going to be the as great of a run down as with a text based website it will be indexed. Yahoo also has a form of SWF indexing. Also, you can always place content behind your SWF, that way if the SWF for any reason doesn't load you still have some content.
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/07/google-yahoo-spiders-can-now-crawl-through-flash-sites.ars The link may be a year old but this one was much more in depth than most recent articles.
p4plus2 wrote: Actually that is not entirely accurate. Google can index many SWF version, while its not going to be the as great of a run down as with a text based website it will be indexed. Yahoo also has a form of SWF indexing. Also, you can always place content behind your SWF, that way if the SWF for any reason doesn't load you still have some content.
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/07/google-yahoo-spiders-can-now-crawl-through-flash-sites.ars The link may be a year old but this one was much more in depth than most recent articles.
I for one, surf with NoScript turned on. Btw, everyone who doesn't, does NOT understand the Internet.
Have fun with your crappy swf (CPU-FUCKING-CYCLES)/js-only sites.
Thanks for the link
Yes I know, there is some problems with Google. But when you compile your website with Flew Builder 3 (http://www.adobe.com/products/flex/?promoid=BPDEQ), an index file is created. Then you can edit the source and enter meta key. :D
spyware wrote:
I for one, surf with NoScript turned on. Btw, everyone who doesn't, does NOT understand the Internet.
Have fun with your crappy swf (CPU-FUCKING-CYCLES)/js-only sites.
I never said they were better, just pointed out google can index them. SWF have a time and place, JS has a time and place, and HTML has its time and place. As a webdeveloper your job is to think about what audience you are trying to reach. If you wish to reach gamers, a more interactive flash based site may be more beneficial to you. A blog on the other hand would best be written in simple HTML with CSS.
I figured that you would have the common sense to understand flash based sites would not be optimal in most situations, but you proved me wrong on that one. Next time I'll open my front door and shout it out to the whole fucking world. Would that help?
p4plus2 wrote: I never said they were better, just pointed out google can index them. SWF have a time and place, JS has a time and place, and HTML has its time and place. As a webdeveloper your job is to think about what audience you are trying to reach. If you wish to reach gamers, a more interactive flash based site may be more beneficial to you. A blog on the other hand would best be written in simple HTML with CSS.
I figured that you would have the common sense to understand flash based sites would not be optimal in most situations, but you proved me wrong on that one. Next time I'll open my front door and shout it out to the whole fucking world. Would that help?
Maintaining a flash-driven website or something? Sheesh. When I was "shouting", I was being angry at FLASH. And flash developers. Yeah, flash has a time and a place. Games. That's the only thing it should do. Should these be streamed from a browser? Probably not. Maybe in a separate thread, then it should be okay.
Websites should be coded purely in valid HTML and CSS standards. Should we go out of our way to support IE6.0? NO. Should we exclude people who don't run Javascript? NO. Should we exclude people who don't/can't run flash? NO.
Why do gamers need flash websites? You can make BEAUTIFUL websites without flash, using only HTML and CSS. Personal opinion? Maybe. Should we make flash-driven websites? No, fuck no. Compliance with worldwide standards improves security, user-experience and will create a better structured, more solid World Wide Web.
Why do gamers need flash websites? You can make BEAUTIFUL websites without flash, using only HTML and CSS. Personal opinion? Maybe. Should we make flash-driven websites? No, fuck no. Compliance with worldwide standards improves security, user-experience and will create a better structured, more solid World Wide Web.
HTML site are very easy to hack (cf basic web hacking) andy kids could crash your website. Hacking Flash site require some AS3 skills.
I'm agree with you, some HTML site are very beautiful but if you want to add some flash movie & some RIA…then….it's sooooo long to download it. A Flash site is totaly downloaded, not a HTML site. You can build some AIR application with flash code. It's impossible to do it with HTML. ;)
X35C911 wrote: HTML site are very easy to hack (cf basic web hacking) andy kids could crash your website. Hacking Flash site require some AS3 skills.
I'm agree with you, some HTML site are very beautiful but if you want to add some flash movie & some RIA…then….it's sooooo long to download it. A Flash site is totaly downloaded, not a HTML site. You can build some AIR application with flash code. It's impossible to do it with HTML. ;)
AIR? Fuck AIR! Fuck Adobe! Yeah, that's right, fuck 'em! Also, how do you mean "crash" a website? HTML and CSS are just plaintext things rendered by a browser. (Javascript too, but Javascript is just one big, big security hole). You can use whatever fucking language you want to generate the plaintext. PHP, Perl, Python, whatever. Just don't put more (closed-source) SHIT in my browser.
spyware wrote: Maintaining a flash-driven website or something? Sheesh. When I was "shouting", I was being angry at FLASH. And flash developers. Yeah, flash has a time and a place. Games. That's the only thing it should do. Should these be streamed from a browser? Probably not. Maybe in a separate thread, then it should be okay.
Websites should be coded purely in valid HTML and CSS standards. Should we go out of our way to support IE6.0? NO. Should we exclude people who don't run Javascript? NO. Should we exclude people who don't/can't run flash? NO.
Why do gamers need flash websites? You can make BEAUTIFUL websites without flash, using only HTML and CSS. Personal opinion? Maybe. Should we make flash-driven websites? No, fuck no. Compliance with worldwide standards improves security, user-experience and will create a better structured, more solid World Wide Web.
This is something I can agree with. We can get more ontopic now.
Some sites to help with web design: http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/11/05/strategic-design-6-steps-for-building-successful-websites/ http://www.secretsites.com (slightly outdated, 2004) http://cssmania.com/
X35C911 wrote: [quote]Why do gamers need flash websites? You can make BEAUTIFUL websites without flash, using only HTML and CSS. Personal opinion? Maybe. Should we make flash-driven websites? No, fuck no. Compliance with worldwide standards improves security, user-experience and will create a better structured, more solid World Wide Web.
HTML site are very easy to hack (cf basic web hacking) andy kids could crash your website. Hacking Flash site require some AS3 skills.
I'm agree with you, some HTML site are very beautiful but if you want to add some flash movie & some RIA…then….it's sooooo long to download it. A Flash site is totaly downloaded, not a HTML site. You can build some AIR application with flash code. It's impossible to do it with HTML. ;)[/quote]
Lol. Seriously? Hack an html site? Do you propose doing that with DoS or with FTP password brutefortcing? You can't even argue that you could use the expression vulnerability, because that requires input being placed on a page, which requires a server side language in most cases.
Back on topic, I agree with Mosh that stealth's website is nice. It's nice because it uses the nice simple design I previously mentioned: the single bar up top and the navbar on the side with the main content on the right of the navbar.
Whilst true about the fact some search engines can index SWFs, not ALL information will be indexed, not nearly as much as an XHTML page. Also, with SWFs you can't specify which elements are more important, <h1> for example, as header tags which contain keywords relevant to the site are important, and in an SWF these are non-existant.
But anyway, the point still stands that text based browsers and people with Javascript turned off completely, or partially off via NoScript, will see NOTHING at all.
XHTML and CSS are fine for web design, Flex is good for in-browser applications, for example Elites0ft uses Flex for the admin panel application, but nothing else.
spyware wrote: [quote]system_meltdown wrote: in-browser applications
DEVIL TAKETH YOUR SOUL[/quote]
Wow, you must really hate Flash… ;)
I don't like the idea of having closed-source software in my browser, but still I think there's some places where Flash can be used, like movie-players, games and such. The worst thing I know is whole websites in Flash. They're slow, ugly, and are harder to secure than PHP/(X)HTML/CSS websites.
spyware wrote: [quote]p4plus2 wrote: I never said they were better, just pointed out google can index them. SWF have a time and place, JS has a time and place, and HTML has its time and place. As a webdeveloper your job is to think about what audience you are trying to reach. If you wish to reach gamers, a more interactive flash based site may be more beneficial to you. A blog on the other hand would best be written in simple HTML with CSS.
I figured that you would have the common sense to understand flash based sites would not be optimal in most situations, but you proved me wrong on that one. Next time I'll open my front door and shout it out to the whole fucking world. Would that help?
Maintaining a flash-driven website or something? Sheesh. When I was "shouting", I was being angry at FLASH. And flash developers. Yeah, flash has a time and a place. Games. That's the only thing it should do. Should these be streamed from a browser? Probably not. Maybe in a separate thread, then it should be okay.
Websites should be coded purely in valid HTML and CSS standards. Should we go out of our way to support IE6.0? NO. Should we exclude people who don't run Javascript? NO. Should we exclude people who don't/can't run flash? NO.
Why do gamers need flash websites? You can make BEAUTIFUL websites without flash, using only HTML and CSS. Personal opinion? Maybe. Should we make flash-driven websites? No, fuck no. Compliance with worldwide standards improves security, user-experience and will create a better structured, more solid World Wide Web.[/quote]
I agree, overall. But let's face it, people who can't use JavaScript or Flash in their browsers are so rare these days that they almost don't exist. JavaScript can actually be very helpful for making a site run smooth, for example with slow internet connections, it can mean refreshing only a portion of a page, rather than the whole thing.
x_5631 wrote:
I agree, overall. But let's face it, people who can't use JavaScript or Flash in their browsers are so rare these days that they almost don't exist. JavaScript can actually be very helpful for making a site run smooth, for example with slow internet connections, it can mean refreshing only a portion of a page, rather than the whole thing.
If you think about it you could make it so your site supports a javascriptless environment. Say you use links to dynamically load content, what if you made them real links to a alternative page with all of the content and then had a javascript that would change the location to a javascript function that changes your content. That way the links only change to a javascript environment if javascript is enabled, and its not that much more work in the short or long term.
x_5631 wrote: [quote]spyware wrote: [quote]x_5631 wrote: I agree, overall. But let's face it, people who can't use JavaScript or Flash in their browsers are so rare these days that they almost don't exist.
Security awareness. You don't have it.[/quote]
Care to elaborate?[/quote]
Disabling javascript and flash prevents redirects, cookie stealing, unescapable rickrolls, adverts, potential bugs in JS/flash and so on.
spyware wrote:
AIR? Fuck AIR! Fuck Adobe!
I like Adobe, you don't like it okay it's your choice. There is many ways to do a website, I have mine…
AIR is more easy to use for me, I can do some desktop & web application & I'm happy. I had try to use C & PHP but I don't like it, it's too hard for me.
I never say that HTML website are bad, some of them are very cool.
X35C911 wrote: [quote]spyware wrote:
AIR? Fuck AIR! Fuck Adobe!
I like Adobe, you don't like it okay it's your choice. There is many ways to do a website, I have mine…
AIR is more easy to use for me, I can do some desktop & web application & I'm happy. I had try to use C & PHP but I don't like it, it's too hard for me.
I never say that HTML website are bad, some of them are very cool.[/quote]
I must agree to an extent with that. While air is perfectly suitable for simple applications such as a twitter search or a messenger system, it would not be very wise to make a video converter or file browser. Everything has its use, air is for simple applications requiring little to no system level interactions.
p4plus2 wrote: [quote]x_5631 wrote: [quote]spyware wrote: [quote]x_5631 wrote: I agree, overall. But let's face it, people who can't use JavaScript or Flash in their browsers are so rare these days that they almost don't exist.
Security awareness. You don't have it.[/quote]
Care to elaborate?[/quote]
Disabling javascript and flash prevents redirects, cookie stealing, unescapable rickrolls, adverts, potential bugs in JS/flash and so on.[/quote]
and Yet none of those things have happened to me for a long time when I have it enabled, so they're not that big a risk. Also, my point was not that JavaScript and Flash are amazing, it was that almost everyone has compatibility with them, and therefore if a site has JavaScript, if they have it turned off it's their problem that the scripts wont work, and that just because some people don't use it doesn't mean that a site shouldn't.
spyware wrote: To idiots above: You never notice a swift and capable thief.
Air is for desktop applications, so having flash disabled means nothing. If you don't want to run air applications then don't install air, really simple. Almost everything can harm you these days, if you are that concerned get off your computer. Air applications do not magically run in your web browser and therefore disabled or not it doesn't matter, they will only run if you download and double-click on it providing air is installed.
If you are now scared of desktop applications, why don't you just freeze your your hard drive. Never allow a single change.
Spyware, I do understand there is a want for security but there is also a limit between sanity and paranoid. Block flash and JS, that is acceptable. You choose to install air applications, they are not automatic. You have the option to not install. Air applications are not all powerful and are very limited in their capabilities. That is not to say a malicious coder can't still do something, but it would be much harder and installation is choice.
Just use a browser like lynx and stop complaining about insecurities, they exist nobody can stop them. Get a good firewall and anti virus, and never use creditcards or other sensitive crap online. My recommendations would be a separate partition for creditcard transactions where you make your purchase and log out asap. Then you don't have to worry about your personal information at least. As for stealing of sessions and other malicious conduct from JS/flash have no script running flash off and then stop complaining.
p4plus2 wrote: Air is for desktop applications, so having flash disabled means nothing.
I was talking about JS/Flash in a browser.
If you are now scared of desktop applications, why don't you just freeze your your hard drive. Never allow a single change.
Weren't we discussing in-browser applications/renditions? I understand the link between Adobe Flash and Air, but I'm not sure why Air got added to this discussion.
Just use a browser like lynx and stop complaining about insecurities, they exist nobody can stop them. Get a good firewall and anti virus, and never use creditcards or other sensitive crap online. My recommendations would be a separate partition for creditcard transactions where you make your purchase and log out asap. Then you don't have to worry about your personal information at least. As for stealing of sessions and other malicious conduct from JS/flash have no script running flash off and then stop complaining.
You're a Windows user I take it?
Your stance towards security is apathetic, and I doubt you have enough knowledge about cyber-forensics to express well-argumented opinions. It's very easy to mark the security-aware people as "paranoid", and label them crazy. Very easy.
spyware wrote: [quote]p4plus2 wrote: Air is for desktop applications, so having flash disabled means nothing.
I was talking about JS/Flash in a browser.
If you are now scared of desktop applications, why don't you just freeze your your hard drive. Never allow a single change.
Weren't we discussing in-browser applications/renditions? I understand the link between Adobe Flash and Air, but I'm not sure why Air got added to this discussion.
Just use a browser like lynx and stop complaining about insecurities, they exist nobody can stop them. Get a good firewall and anti virus, and never use creditcards or other sensitive crap online. My recommendations would be a separate partition for creditcard transactions where you make your purchase and log out asap. Then you don't have to worry about your personal information at least. As for stealing of sessions and other malicious conduct from JS/flash have no script running flash off and then stop complaining.
You're a Windows user I take it?
Your stance towards security is apathetic, and I doubt you have enough knowledge about cyber-forensics to express well-argumented opinions. It's very easy to mark the security-aware people as "paranoid", and label them crazy. Very easy.[/quote] Air came in at post id 137425. Your reply about 'the above idiot' seemed to be mentioning to that. That out of the way…..
I am not a windows user, and by your message implying that non-windows users are perfectly safe is wrong. Linux(which is what I use, fedora 11 waiting for fedora 12 alpha to be ready), is not impervious to think that is a misconception. While thousands of times better than windows, things do get through that can harm the system. A few can be found with these links: http://linuxreviews.org/news/2004/06/11_kernel_crash/ http://isec.pl/vulnerabilities/isec-0021-uselib.txt http://y2h4ck.wordpress.com/2008/10/28/linux-kernel-2622-openftruncate-local-exploit/ http://www.isec.pl/vulnerabilities/isec-0021-uselib.txt http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/5092
Those are just the kernel too, more exploits can be found in programs that come with various distros. Linux users should still use firewalls and anti viruses. I don't think complete security is bad, but to much is paranoid and has the potential to harm a system. Many of those articles are old, but the past very often repeats itself.
What is the point in developing technologies that enhance interactivity if users have to fear them? The golden rule says treat all users as hackers, but that doesn't mean that we should run around with our tail between our legs. As somebody that spends time on a computer the goal is to find a solution, not hide the problem and hope it goes away.
To judge what qualifies somebody is also a rather presumptuous notion isn't it? There is a certain amount of hypocrisy to that subject too, for nobody can know everything about a subject meaning nobody can ever truly qualify. So what qualifies you to say I may not qualify? It is a matter of opinion, and nothing more.
p4plus2 wrote: I am not a windows user, and by your message implying that non-windows users are perfectly safe is wrong.
I never implied such a thing. I was asking if you were a Windows-only user because your stance towards open standards, security and the level of awareness you've shown in this thread don't really match with the regular Linux user. I must admit that "Air" is a bad example of closed-source software, since there's a Linux version available.
spyware wrote: I never implied such a thing. I was asking if you were a Windows-only user because your stance towards open standards, security and the level of awareness you've shown in this thread don't really match with the regular Linux user. I must admit that "Air" is a bad example of closed-source software, since there's a Linux version available.
I never said I do not support 'closed-source' in fact, flex is a open-source framework for flash development. The IDE will cost you, however it is not required. http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/flexsdk/Flex+SDK
Security and the level of awareness? I linked you to many potentially malicious exploits in the linux kernel, I am aware that things are not perfect. I never claim that leaving JS and flash on is 'safe', there is no way to be fully 'safe'. I acknowledge they are not safe, but I also believe running aware from a problem doesn't fix it. I find a background check on a site is much easier than limiting the sites potential.
My apologies over the "I never implied such a thing", your message seemed to have that sort of "windows is the only flawed system out there".